BCS wrote:
> Hello Christopher,
> 
>> (As an aside, Google's link obfuscation is hella annoying.)
> 
> ??

You do the google search for ISO9899. The link they give you:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.open-std.org%2FJTC1%2FSC22%2Fwg14%2Fwww%2Fdocs%2Fn1124.pdf&ei=IQofSs23FNjXlAeJmeXGBQ&usg=AFQjCNGZNITNpxvZKard5pSr7RQvxmTDkQ&sig2=8T5gS1aSODl4KdKmy2jp_w

Eugh.

Reply to Christopher,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Hello Christopher,
>> 
>>> (As an aside, Google's link obfuscation is hella annoying.)
>>> 
>> ??
>> 
> You do the google search for ISO9899. The link they give you:
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2
> Fwww.open-std.org%2FJTC1%2FSC22%2Fwg14%2Fwww%2Fdocs%2Fn1124.pdf&ei=IQo
> fSs23FNjXlAeJmeXGBQ&usg=AFQjCNGZNITNpxvZKard5pSr7RQvxmTDkQ&sig2=8T5gS1
> aSODl4KdKmy2jp_w
> 
> Eugh.
> 

only if you are logged in to a google account. The mangling is so they can tell what you click on for ( you.are(paranoid) ? "stalking you" : "creating better personalized search results" )

BCS wrote:
> Reply to Stewart,
<snip>
>> My impression was that it's some standard list of Unicode characters
>> that are letters (or logogram or ideogram or whatever) in some
>> language somewhere in the world.
> 
> That's more or less the same thing (although I'll admit, my original comment is not well stated).

Indeed, my keyboard has a number of punctuation characters, most of which aren't valid in identifiers.

> I'm not just talking about standard QWERTY keyboard but also standard keyboards for other languages and alphabets. 

I'd got that far.

> I rather suspect that for every char in universal alpha, there is a standard keyboard somewhere that has it.

So I guess it's therefore likely to exclude ancient scripts with not enough modern use to have warranted the invention of a standard keyboard therefor.  (One omission I noticed is Phoenician, though that may be also due to its later arrival in Unicode.)

Stewart.

Hello Stewart,

> So I guess it's therefore likely to exclude ancient scripts with not
> enough modern use to have warranted the invention of a standard
> keyboard therefor.  (One omission I noticed is Phoenician, though that
> may be also due to its later arrival in Unicode.)


Anyone who really wants to use Phoenician for symbol names should be taken out and shot (with a nerf gun).

> 
> Stewart.
> 

BCS wrote:
> Reply to Robert,
> 
> 
>> Hmm... I'd say x.⊆(y) is preferable x.isSubsetOf(y), but it's not a
>> huge deal.
>>
> 
> Only until you have to type it. I think universal alpha includes only the union of things that can be easily typed on standard keyboards. I don't think any keyboard (ok maybe an APL keyboard) has the subset symbol on it.

I have 10 configurable keys on my keyboard, none of which are in use. I could also remap my numpad (cause, seriously, who uses this?) Also, many editors can be configured so that a sequence of characters converts to a single one.

There appears to be no reason that mathematical symbols aren't allowed in identifiers... Think of how awesome it would be to write assert(x⊇y→∀a∈x∃b∈y(a⊇b)) ... Okay, that would require overloading of those operators (and instantiating variables in a new way), but still!

Hello Robert,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Reply to Robert,
>> 
>>> Hmm... I'd say x.⊆(y) is preferable x.isSubsetOf(y), but it's not a
>>> huge deal.
>>> 
>> Only until you have to type it. I think universal alpha includes only
>> the union of things that can be easily typed on standard keyboards. I
>> don't think any keyboard (ok maybe an APL keyboard) has the subset
>> symbol on it.
>> 
> I have 10 configurable keys on my keyboard, none of which are in use.
> I could also remap my numpad (cause, seriously, who uses this?) Also,
> many editors can be configured so that a sequence of characters
> converts to a single one.
> 
> There appears to be no reason that mathematical symbols aren't allowed
> in identifiers... Think of how awesome it would be to write
> assert(x⊇y→∀a∈x∃b∈y(a⊇b)) ... Okay, that would require overloading of
> those operators (and instantiating variables in a new way), but still!
> 

Allowing them as operators would be cool (and won't happen for another whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with this) but in identifiers? Not a chance. I don't care what you can type, what matters is what /I/ can type (the generic 'I', assuming I can read your comments -> I use your language -> I use your alphabet).

Robert Fraser wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> Reply to Robert,
>>
>>
>>> Hmm... I'd say x.⊆(y) is preferable x.isSubsetOf(y), but it's not a
>>> huge deal.
>>>
>>
>> Only until you have to type it. I think universal alpha includes only the union of things that can be easily typed on standard keyboards. I don't think any keyboard (ok maybe an APL keyboard) has the subset symbol on it.
> 
> I have 10 configurable keys on my keyboard, none of which are in use. I could also remap my numpad (cause, seriously, who uses this?) Also, many editors can be configured so that a sequence of characters converts to a single one.

Which would possibly make D the first language to *require* a specialised keyboard and/or editor since APL.

Not a good precedent.

Oh, and don't try to argue it isn't mandatory.  If you can overload
those operators, people WILL use them and WILL complain that it's too hard.

> There appears to be no reason that mathematical symbols aren't allowed
> in identifiers... Think of how awesome it would be to write
> assert(x⊇y→∀a∈x∃b∈y(a⊇b)) ... Okay, that would require overloading of
> those operators (and instantiating variables in a new way), but still!

I think that example you gave is an excellent reason not to allow them.  :D

It would be nice, but it's really not feasible without widespread editor and/or keyboard support for extra symbols, which I just don't see happening.

Christopher Wright Wrote:

> BCS wrote:
> > Hello Christopher,
> > 
> >> (As an aside, Google's link obfuscation is hella annoying.)
> > 
> > ??
> 
> You do the google search for ISO9899. The link they give you: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.open-std.org%2FJTC1%2FSC22%2Fwg14%2Fwww%2Fdocs%2Fn1124.pdf&ei=IQofSs23FNjXlAeJmeXGBQ&usg=AFQjCNGZNITNpxvZKard5pSr7RQvxmTDkQ&sig2=8T5gS1aSODl4KdKmy2jp_w
> 
> Eugh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99

huh...

Daniel Keep Wrote:

> It would be nice, but it's really not feasible without widespread editor and/or keyboard support for extra symbols, which I just don't see happening.

http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/tools/msklc.mspx
:)))